Are you religious? If so do you disagree with homosexuality?

Personally i'm not religious and have no problem with homosexuals, my best friend is one. The thing i find interesting is the connection with homosexuality being condemned by religion. I don't think there is a connection at all. While it is true that in leviticus, the bible, homosexuality is a sin, so is shaving (this one is still upheld by some Jews). Pretty much all men shave though. Surely then the only real reason religious people condemn homosexuality is because they personally are homophobes. I don't think it's right that they hide behind their religion in this when they are just being discriminating because of their own personal views.

Comments

Religous text is often interperated to suit ones own needs. As society changes and questions are answered and razors become cheaper views adapt and texts are bent out of context. For decades many priests, vicors and other religious authorities have been pointing out that the bible should not be taken literaly but as a serious of profound metaphors. Many of these metaphors provide lovley ways to live our lives, many are slightly more dubious and, in some cases, a sign of the times they were written in.

People who can't tolerate homosexuality because the bible says they shoudn't are as archaic as the bible. There will come a time when this view is so widly dissmissed as 'childish' or 'immaterial' that the few groups left that choose to believe it will diminish.

My questions to these people would be: would you be more tollerant of homosexuals if they weren't mentioned in the bible or if the bible didn't exist? If so, then surely that would be taking the more 'christian' approach?

Hey Ertrov! Long time no polite arguing : ). So, you follow biblical rules as long as they are in the NT and meant to be literal?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
--1 Tim. 2:11-14

one of my friends is a jahova (don't know how to spell it) whitness and she hates homosexualls somuch that if someone she new was gay she wouldn't talk to them. I find it unconstatutional for gays to be dinied the right to get married.

So, separate but equal? That's worked quite well in the past, eh? I personally would call that sexist- you want to restrict one sex more than another... that means you are sexist, by definition. But, besides that...

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).

Dannyl - I agree with your theory %100 ... I believe that the ONLY reason that some people push their beliefs on others when it comes to hating people for homosexuality , is fear driven as well. Why would anyone 'hate' someone for living their life the way they feel it should be ? I NEVER understood that and I never will. Why do others feel the need to judge ?

Well I am religious. I go to church almost every Sunday. I think that being gay is wierd and unnatural. I completly disagree with it. But I don't care if they get married. It's not going to hurt me and it's not my business what someone else does in their bed.

I think that's a bit tenuous there and you know it :P. What we should do isn't what we always do. I mean we all know there are things but we shouldn't really do but do anyway, but they are still wrong. And some things are more wrong than others, there are relatively innocent things like a father pressuring a daughter to put a few more clothes on or something like that, even though he should let her live her own life. But I think pressuring a homosexual to change themselves is very wrong. I've been a bit incoherent there but you get the idea.

I would be interested to see if you could find any information, as until now I've seen nothing to suggest that homosexuality was a disorder. I mean you can argue how a child is raised could have somewhat of an effect on it, but personally I think it's a relatively natural thing.

I'd disagree with you somewhat there, I think people are born with a natural sense of basic instincts, like it's wrong to kill one of your own and parental loyalty that kind of thing. But the intricasies of modern laws, written and unwritten are taught to them. Children will innocently take a chocolate bar from a shop or something and have to be explained why it's wrong. And again I think it's a little tenuous, just because people do have feelings pushed down shouldn't mean it's fine if it does happen, and feel even worse if they are FORCED down. And you see a lot of the time feelings that are pushed down can be very unhealthy to a person's mental state.

OK, maybe you're right about the chromosome xx/xy gene because what would I know I am simply a fourteen year old boy in England - You are correct in thinking that i believe in evolution, however I don't think the word biased would be correct, more so that i am an atheist as opposed to an agnostic - maybe I had worded myself wrong in my previous post but the direction I was heading was that if there is an attraction to another human of the same sex, then physically (reproductively) it is incorrect however, sex is a pleasurable thing personally I don't know a lot about gay sex but I'm pretty sure it's enjoyable for them. Now should we not feel correct about doing something we enjoy? (Exceptions for mentally ill "psychopaths"/"Loonies"/"Crazies") and That was (sorta) the direction I was going in. Another note, the reason I believe in giving a young child faith and religion is because, instead of growing up being told that they're going to die and rot away, they can be told that there is a nicer (after)life waiting for them. It also works in a different aspect such as them being told that they won't go to the nicer place if they are naughty and misbehave. now I understand what you mean about them growing up only to have their hopes and faiths dashed because of evolution or the big-bang but if they, like I, felt emotionally mature enough to handle it then why not. This can also have a knock on effect with their grades and exams because they may be more interested in science and the stars and quantum-physics haha. But anyway, I digress, the fact that 2.3% of humans (around 138,000,000) is quite an unstoppable force. And because of that and the fact that it is doing none of us harm, I believe that homosexuality is right in that person's perspective.
(P.S. I DO however have a moral issue with a faith that is being unnecessarily forced upon other nonreligious types.)

The Bible, in my belief, is to be taken literally, unless it specifically says "this is a metaphor/parable" in some way. Therefore, in the New Testament, when it says homosexuality is wrong, I take that literally. I do not however, think it is any worse than any other sin. I am a murderer. Now, before you call the police, I mean in the sense that I've hated someone. According to the Bible, I'm guilty of murder. Therefore, I cannot honestly pronounce judgement on gays. I can tell them that according to the Bible, they are sinning, but ultimately, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." We've all sinned, and I firmly believe a Christian can be gay, just like a Christian can be addicted to pornography. While they should not defend this position, or be proud of it, and should be trying to stop sinning, it does not take them out of forgiveness.

When I say that I don't include people who's motives are religious. People who genuinely disagree with homosexuality because they are particularly devout I can understand, and even respect how much faith they have, despite the fact that I disagree with their beliefs.

I must admit I have never actually read the Bible, and have only read certain passages and just picked stuff up that you do when Christianity is such a widespread faith. I believe the only way you can really justify a lot of the Bible is by taking it as a metaphor etc. rather than fact, otherwise people can just blow holes in most of the stuff in there.

I don't proclaim myself to be an expert by any means but that's the idea I've gotten. Also, mainly out of interest, does it actually say anywhere in the bible like you said anything along the lines of "this is a metaphor/parable"?

Also, when you said "or be proud of it, and should be trying to stop sinning,", were you referring more to the Christian being addicted to pornography, or all sins, including homosexuality?

I agree with your point, and I don't mean to get on your case too much, but you should really try and put effort into the spelling of your post in this kind of post where it's centered around intelligent debate. As Ertrov said it detracts from your point.

I'm not intending this in a harsh way it's just a good idea if you want people to take your posts completely seriously.

They can only blow holes in it if you haven't done the research to defend what seem to be holes. Look deep enough and you can almost always find where the Bible explains itself. Ghettoshen is correct, that's what I meant, not literally my quote. Basically, you can tell easily when it's a metaphor. I meant all sins, including homosexuality.

I can accept that religious people disagree etc. with homosexuality, but the one thing I can never understand is that the idea that they should be ashamed of themselves and should try and change.

I mean, do you believe a really devout Christian who is against homosexuality, but is him/herself homosexual but tries to pretend he/she isn't, should spend their entire life with inner-torment trying to change themselves. I've probably worded that a bit strongly as you haven't explained precisely what you mean surrounding homosexuality, but you get the idea.

I don't hate gay people, but I also do not agree that what they are doing is right. Sexual attraction is a cruel thing. Most people's attraction is related to something that happened to them as they were growing up, whether it was good or bad. The only difference between Homosexuality and being attracted to fat people (ex.), is that one will still allow sexual reproduction.

It doesn't matter if it can be used in a non-offensive way, you used it in an offensive way. And it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, I'm still gonna call you out if you act like a dick, which you are.

If you call a female dog a bitch, it wont care, no-one cares. If you call Chuck Norris a bitch, you'll get roundhoused into oblivion. It's about context genius.

i think you cant choose who you love, and the gay community doesn't choose to be ostracized from society, i believe that they have as much right to be with who they love just as much as the next person.... i support gay marriage, and gay rights...

Huh, I never realised fag was used in so many contexts, and I'm British so I probably should know these. I only knew it as slang for cigarettes.
But yeah, sorry, going to have to agree with MikeyNinja, even if you are just using it in conjunction with the picture, you don't have to call them fag's. :)

In my opinion, I'm not religious, I have no issues with homosexuality, everyone to their own, however, like straight couple's I prefer it if they don't get all touchy feely with each other in public it does make me uncomfortable. :)

I think that if a person is gay and wishes to fulfil his/her sexual desires with another male/female then I am in favour of that - purely because I know that each individual has different views, aspects, personalities, hobbies, friends, ethnicity etc. Because of different influences throughout his/her life (or the "gay" chromosome-but that's for a latter discussion.)However, saying that, aren't there people in this world that find it acceptable to - let's say - molest young children or force sex unto another unwilling person or even to the extent of bestiality or necrophilia. As we know that these sorts of humans are in existence - where do we draw the line between inhumane or immoral acts and normal socially-acceptable acts? Homo-sexuality? Necrophilia?
That is another question I put forward to you. In terms of the bible - I am completely and utterly by science's side so I don't know much about the bible, however - I see religion as a great thing to have in dietary amounts. It's a good thing to have as a young child to form hope and faith but, when a person is living their live by the "book" they will soon find problems that clash with today's society. Almost (excuse the pun but) holey. And please feel free to correct me at any time on any point but wouldn't an archaic group of forbiddingly strict priests and religious writer's views be a lot more... Well, Strict?
(P.S. I'm Sorry for the length I just enjoy my Debates :P)

I believe in Heaven, that's the total sum of my beliefs. I really could care less if people are gay or straight. It's not a mental choice, people can't say "I think I'm going to be gay/straight today, then switch tomorrow." Psychologically, everyone is attracted to both male and females. But, the attract level is different for everyone. So, stop saying that being gay is a sin, because if you believe that God made everyone, then he made some people gay, and some people straight. The bible was a collection of works, all strung together, so I don't really take anything from it.

That doesn't mean you get to call people whatever the hell you want. Go to somewhere like, let's say Harlem, and walk down the street calling every black person you see a ni****. See how well your 'a name is just a name' argument stands up there.

Ive also questioned the fact of where do we draw the line, I think I may have found an answer, the reason we don't allow bestiality or necrophilia is because its taking advantage of something for personal gain. homosexuality doesn't do that at all.

Well I'm glad you're so perfect that words don't effect you, but they do other people. You can't just go around calling people offensive things because they wouldn't offend you. They are still offensive.

Ok, first of all, there is no "gay gene/chromosome". It was 'discovered' by a scientist who turned out to be gay, and admitted he made it up. Anyway, by separating science from the Bible, I have to assume you are very biased towards evolution, or some other form of secular humanism. The fact that you are unwilling to even accept the possibility that religion can be scientifically accurate takes attention away from your point and decreases your credibility. Also, one quick point, what good is giving 'hope' and 'faith' to children, only to have them discover that (according to humanism) there is no hope, faith is pointless, and there is no God. It seems to me you are degrading the importance of God to the level of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Also, could it be possible that the problem lies with society, not religion? That the reason we have so much crime, sexual perversion, etc. is because we have denounce the authority of God's Law, therefore making morals moot? As soon as one accepts the idea that there are no absolute truths (which would be an absolute truth in itself, just saying), one must then also accept the idea that morals are also relative, thereby causing more social problems. If there are no morals, why follow the law? If this is the only life we have, should I not live the best life I possibly can, even if I hurt others in the process? Why does it matter, if there is no one to judge me in the end? You see, the world, although now fallen, was designed by God to function with His morals. As soon as we deter from those, society begins to collapse. Perhaps, instead of being too strict, modern religions are not strict enough? Something to consider.

God also made psychopaths. People who have a disorder which causes them to have no emotion, and therefore not care who they hurt to come out on top. They can't help this, but does it make it right for them to do whatever they want to succeed? To even kill? Here's the catch. There is treatment for psychopaths. In some cases they can be completely cured. This is the same with homosexuality. Some formerly gay people have received psychiatric help, and are now happy and straight. Not tormenting themselves by suppressing gay urges. They're just straight.

Personally, I think it's wrong to try and change other people to conform to your beliefs, or to try and change yourself. It's another matter altogether if a Christian person is so ashamed of themselves that they try and get someone to 'help' them, in that case I feel sorry for them. But pressuring a homosexual to try and change themselves due to your beliefs is just wrong in my book.

I've also never seen anything that suggests homosexuality to be a mental disorder, I'm interested to see your facts behind that statement.

I'd also like to point out that I don't think those people were genuinely 'changed from homosexual to heterosexual', I believe they were just brainwashed into pushing their true feelings deep down inside.

Hey, johnecash, I know how you feel. My people were oppressed by whites, many times. We came to America out of necessity, and were treated like dirt. Called terrible things, weren't allowed to work a decent job, killed for just being.... Irish. Yet do you hear us using it as a crutch? No. So stop whining about being oppressed and make something of yourself. Kind of off topic, but obviously you do care about race, or you wouldn't be so angry about it.

Well, then, we shouldn't pressure people to wear clothes in public. I mean, isn't that pushing our beliefs on them? Maybe they think it's right to be naked. Just saying, once you open a door, it can be hard to close.

I'll look around and see if I can dig up some of that info for you. It's not exactly easy to find, as most people would like to hide it. But I'll tell you what it's about. Basically, homosexuality used to be listed as a mental disorder. This was not founded in fact, and it was a good thing it was removed from the list. Unfortunately, it's removal caused the progression of sympathy toward gays to skyrocket, and by the time scientists had more conclusively defined why it is a mental disorder, public opinion was against them.

In some cases this may be. But we all also have a sin nature. For instance, you never have to tell a child how to do wrong, they know that from birth. Instead, you have to teach them how to do right. So, we are all 'pushing our true feelings down' by not stealing, killing, etc. Just because we feel a certain way doesn't make it right.

Ergh it didn't matter that it was about race, it was just a general situation where you are insulting someone. It was just an example. And he is right, you do care about race, come to think of it now you have brought it up several times in other threads.

God made the people. Psychological disorders are almost never cause at birth, rather by what happens during their life, such as dissociative identity disorder (DID). People with DID have more than one personality, each with it's own name, beliefs, thoughts, and memories. This person may hurt others, then have no memory of it. God didn't create the disorder, instead, the events that took place (mostly in childhood, for DID) did. If homosexuality is a psychological problem, then so is heterosexuality. Yet, people seem to only point out that one is a "problem". Both are functions of the brain, and each person is individual.

Also, if I'm correct, I believe that Uganda passed a "kill the gays" bill. They are killing and putting homosexuals in jail. Who do you think, out of the two groups of people, has a better chance of being considered a good group of people?

I believe it is right for them to do so. Now, before anyone says I'm sexist, I'm not. I don't believe men are better than women. I believe they are equal, but also different. We've strayed away from this difference in our culture, but that doesn't make it invalid.

That's because our culture is far too tolerant of sin. If we had a law that only virgins can be married (and you'll also find in the Bible this does not include widows, who can marry), then there would be far less teen pregnancy, etc.

For one thing, you're assuming someone who is homosexual is that way from birth. There is not nearly enough scientific evidence to actually support that theory. It's just publicly accepted. Also, God is sovereign, so those events causing said problems are preordained. Only homosexuality is considered a problem because heterosexuality has a scientific purpose. And it was challenged, actually, by the Quakers.
Finally, just because one extremist group of people does something wrong does not render the whole cause invalid. By that logic, the 9/11 bombers would render all Islamic people evil. (in the sense of evil compared to other humans, since all men are evil compared to God)

I have to say, I strongly disagree with gay couples raising children. Mainly because children need a father and mother. Every time one or both of those parental figures is missing, it causes problems in the child's development. Men and women are very different for a reason.

I think sex is a very natural and a very pleasurable thing. There's nothing wrong with it.

And I think 'our culture is far too tolerant of sin' is quite a controversial statement. For a start not everyone is Christian and thinks the same things are sinful. Don't look poorly on people who are doing things unacceptable by your rules. I'm not saying your rules are wrong, but they are after all YOUR rules.

Also, I think if a law was passed that only virgins can get married, I don't think you'd see far less teen pregnancies, I think you'd see a lot less marriages. ;)

I was just interested by you saying, "Not tormenting themselves by suppressing gay urges" Surely the best way to stop that torment is by accepting it and letting it out, rather than putting themselves through therapy and brainwashing to change themselves?

There is no perfect way of raising a child, every way of doing it has it's flaws and has it's advantages. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the parents can provide a safe life, and love their child it doesn't matter who or what they are.

but if u dont have a problem with calling someone father, then y have a problem with homosexuality, you say one thing then say something t contradict it. You say u take the bible literally then u take and not do it in another situation. Are u only taking the parts that u can handle or what.

Actually, they aren't my rules. They were rules created by the one and only true God. Personally, I think His rules are a lot more important than any law created by man. And good point bout the marriage thing, but that only proves how fallen humans are.

I'm glad you're willing to be reasonable, I appreciate it. :) Anyway, as far as gay sex being pleasurable, is everything pleasurable a good idea? On the contrary, most things that are fun have a consequence. Just something to think about.
If evolution is true, what's the point of giving children something to believe in? If there is no God, there are no morals, so really, why bother giving them hope? After all, it doesn't matter, we'll all die, and eventually the sun will go supernova, and then every trace of human history, any evidence we even existed will be gone forever. See what I'm saying? Without God, there really is no point in living. But I digress.
Finally, as much as I'm sure you didn't mean much by your last note on your post, it's actually the most troubling part. For one thing, how can you have a moral problem with it? If it's only human morals, then those morals must be no different than the morals of a serial killer. If it's only man that decides whether it's right or wrong, it doesn't matter. All morals are then relative, and therefore meaningless. Secondly, then you must also have a problem with Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. children going to public school. After all, public school forces the theory of evolution on them as fact, which goes against their religion. If you say "issue with a faith that is being unnecessarily forced upon other nonreligious types." you must also say "issue with a theory (or faith) being forced on religious types." It goes both ways.

Ok, as for the last part, I basically meant, just because a few people in a group do something bad, it doesn't make the whole group bad.
I never said it was a choice. I believe everyone is born straight, and can choose to pervert that later on.
I can't really address this point, other than to say I don't believe in Darwinian Evolution, so to me it doesn't affect my point.

When I said your rules I obviously didn't mean rules created by rules, I meant the rules that you and your religion follow.

But as I said, not everyone believes in your one and only true God, so why should everyone follow his rules? I mean I can understand and respect how you live, but you shouldn't try and make others live the same way, and look badly upon those who don't, regardless of how happy you are with your lifestyle. That was the point I was trying to get at.

I don't think it shows how fallen humans are, I think it shows how outdated some of the rules of your religion are, some have been obseleted and moved away from, but some still haven't. There is nothing wrong with two unwed consenting adults enjoying sex. It's a natural part of life. Of course teen pregnancies are a whole different matter.

"As this summary will show,the results ofexisting
researchcomparing lesbian and gay parents to het-
erosexual parents and childrenoflesbian and gay
parents to children ofheterosexual parents are quite
clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the
data."

"Actually, a lot of people have received psychiatric help, and changed from homosexual to heterosexual."

This is not a fact, and in reality, has never truly been confirmed. If it's possible to change your sexual orientation (without some psyche-distorting horrifically traumatic event), don't you think the homosexual population, at least the one of the past, would have? If you're going to be subjugated for part of yourself, and you can change that part of yourself. But if you cannot change it, you fight for your rights in that area.

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Plain and simple. This was borne out of (mostly religious) prejudice.

Finally, your clothes in public analogy makes no sense. This isn't about the public's feeling on what kind of garments someone puts on- it is about a human being's nature, and their right to equality under governmental statutes. One is a baseline rule to protect children and general societal candor, the other is an inalienable right.

Woah, You're good. :) Anyway 1st point: Indeed you are correct, most pleasurable, fun things have some form of effect or consequence BUT if these persons that are "taking part" in this enjoyment are not hurting anybody else, and if these persons are in full commitment to agree to the consequences of their actions, then why shouldn't they? I seem to be forming my belief into the conclusion:"Why should they not do would they want to?"

2nd point: Although I am an atheist, I am an atheist who believes that, instead of living my life going around telling everybody how crap life is because it all amounts to nothing, I would much rather be saying lets just get on with it and make it as best as we can.
We have emotions, we have feelings, and our feelings and emotions have been affected by the up-bringing of us by our parents and other persons in our life.
Now, if a young child had been brought up living in a shit-state house with abusive parents that neglect any living thing, then that child would have little sincerity in his heart and could not give a toss or two about whether there's a God or not. But a child brought up with compassion, care and love of a "God" would learn to give and feel compassion and care towards others, creating a happier, healthier and heart-filled child.
see, the reason I believe children should have a faith in their youthful years is because life is so much more enjoyable and healthier when there's Love and hope.
Anyway, I seemed to be going off in a bit of a tangent.
note 3: The morals of a "serial killer" in your example, probably isn't the best example, because the morals of that unstable human, would have been affected could by having been deeply and mentally abused or slightly disabled but there may be other causes. When you said that, I assume you meant that if one human being has a different moral or belief to another human being then, because both humans are equal, neither can be correct? However, if that is your case, what the main "Rules/Laws" of the human race are around the terms of:
You can not take another humans life unless that human is in a position to take yours;(All Life Is Equal) you can not interfere in an aggressive or abusive way in a persons life (Each individual has his/her indidual life) There can be no act taken upon another human being if that human being has not willingly allowed the act to be done. Search all of 'em at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
You see? the main rules are obvious to that of a normal living thing whether it be a mole or a monkey. maybe not as complex or as straightforward but that is why we have sub-divisional acts that govern smaller and more minute cases that has been accepted by the people of the world or nationality; to be passed as a law.
Now I come to my last point which is in reference to your talk of public schools' teaching. Now I go to a catholic school but only because it specialises in performing arts - you don't have to be religious to go there. - schools here in England teach only facts of what is known in the universe, there is no teaching of the big-bang as a fact Etc.., however it WILL be covered as a theory which (To my disappointment) is all it is. and that then means yes, I do have a moral issue with a school which does not specify in a certain religion to teach a faith or belief.
That is ONLY if the school is not Specifically based on that religion of which it teaches.
PHEW! I'm Liking This Debate Ertrov. :P

for once i agree with the Ninja. Being different is part of what makes life wonderful.
also if you want take the bible literaly it does say that only virgins can be married. that we should stone a woman who is not a virgin who wants to be married.
its eye opening how different getting stoned is today vs what the bible says.

Ok first of all, shaving isn't a sin. Second, being gay is a sin not because Catholics are discriminant or grossed out of the idea, but because being catholic means to find a person you love, have children, & live happily ever after.

i am 1/2 black. i think i would be ok. don't even try to claim you understand my culture. i am 1/2 black and 1/2 native, i assure you my people have been called far worse than you WASP. my mother had met Dr. King. Race is not important to anyone but fools. buy hey thanks for playing. words only have power when you give it to them.

U may want to live in a censered pc world where games, words, movies, art, ect... Can be offensive. In my country we are given the wright to say what ever we want. Go on and be a censor. You are now part of the problem. What people have to say is and always be more important than how they say it. Unless you are a censor. So ninja I must ask do you claim to be the know all end all of what people should and should not see?

Actually, a lot of people have received psychiatric help, and changed from homosexual to heterosexual. It's not something you're born with, it's a disorder. Now, I don't mean that to be rude or mean, it's just a fact. The only reason it hasn't been added back to the list of official mental disorders is because of public opinion.

Do you think before you post? I only explained my race
when ninja brout up the race and censor card. I agree race is only for the stupid. We are the human race. Judge a man on what a man has to say, not how he says it.

People who believe in the bible word for word have no understanding of science or life. they only know, depending on the version of the bible you are reading, what it tell them to know. if you believe everything the bible says. the only men who know what God's message is are dead men.

I am in your moms hole now as we speak. I rent it out as a study. your moms hole is so big that I have lan parties over here. your moms hole gets the best highspeed internet connection.
but i am off topic. i find it funny that you try and impose your rules on some people then act like its not ok when others do it. your funny.

you sound like you are about to cry. are you going to cry? after you tryied to censor me i thought you of all people would understand rules. but it seems the only rules you follow are your own.
i am a massive dick, thats how i opened up your moms hole i am now using as a study. probly won't get my deposit back since i have trashed your moms hole so badly.

Ninja please stop trying to bestow your morals and beleifs on others. If you want to be treated like a man you must try to understand you fellow man and not Ailey judge him. Only children change the rules so they are always wright. For once be a man.

i am using the term from the pic above. even when i agree you try and start shit. says it all. fag is only a bad word if you want it to be;

fag
1 /fæg/ Show Spelled [fag] Show IPA verb,fagged, fag·ging, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to tire or weary by labor; exhaust (often fol. by out): The long climb fagged us out.
2.
British. to require (a younger public-school pupil) to do menial chores.
3.
Nautical. to fray or unlay the end of (a rope).
–verb (used without object)
4.
Chiefly British. to work until wearied; work hard: to fag away at French.
5.
British Informal. to do menial chores for an older public-school pupil.
–noun
6.
Slang. a cigarette.
7.
a fag end, as of cloth.
8.
a rough or defective spot in a woven fabric; blemish; flaw.
9.
Chiefly British. drudgery; toil.
10.
British Informal. a younger pupil in a British public school required to perform certain menial tasks for, and submit to the hazing of, an older pupil.
11.
a drudge.
Use fag in a Sentence
See images of fag
Search fag on the Web
Origin:
1425–75; late ME fagge broken thread in cloth, loose end (of obscure orig.); sense development appar.: drooping end > to droop, tire > to make weary > drudgery, drudge (cf. relationship of flag1 to flag3); (def. 6) a shortening of fag end (a butt, hence a cigarette)